WAR AND WARFARE
IN LATE ANTIQUITY
EDITED BY
ALEXANDER SARANTIS
and
NEIL CHRISTIE
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2013
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
CONTENTS
VOLUME 8.1
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................
List of Contributors ........................................................................................
Foreword ...........................................................................................................
Alexander Sarantis and Neil Christie
ix
xi
xvii
Waging War in Late Antiquity ....................................................................
Alexander Sarantis
1
Bibliographic Essays
War in Late Antiquity: Secondary Works, Literary Sources and
Material Evidence ......................................................................................
Conor Whately
101
Military Equipment and Weaponry: A Bibliographic Essay ..............
Alexander Sarantis
153
Tactics: A Bibliographic Essay ....................................................................
Alexander Sarantis
177
Organisation and Life in the Late Roman Military:
A Bibliographic Essay ...............................................................................
Conor Whately
209
Strategy, Diplomacy and Frontiers: A Bibliographic Essay ................
Conor Whately
239
Fortiijications in the West: A Bibliographic Essay .................................
Alexander Sarantis with Neil Christie
255
Fortiijications in Africa: A Bibliography Essay .......................................
Alexander Sarantis
297
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
vi
contents
Fortiijications in the East: A Bibliographic Essay ..................................
Alexander Sarantis
317
VOLUME 8.2
Strategy and Intelligence
Information and War: Some Comments on Defensive Strategy
and Information in the Middle Byzantine Period
(ca. A.D. 660–1025) ....................................................................................
John Haldon
373
Fortifications and Siege Warfare
Fortiijications and the Late Roman East: From Urban Walls
to Long Walls ..............................................................................................
James Crow
397
Siege Warfare and Counter-Siege Tactics in Late Antiquity
(ca. 250–640) ...............................................................................................
Michael Whitby
433
Weaponry and Equipment
Late Roman Military Equipment Culture ...............................................
J. C. N. Coulston
Barbarian Military Equipment and its Evolution in the Late
Roman and Great Migration Periods (3rd–5th c. A.D.) .................
Michel Kazanski
Recreating the Late Roman Army .............................................................
John Conyard
463
493
523
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
contents
vii
Literary Sources and Topography
Reporting Battles and Understanding Campaigns in Procopius and
Agathias: Classicising Historians’ Use of Archived Documents as
Sources ..........................................................................................................
Ian Colvin
Procopius on the Struggle for Dara in 530 and Rome in 537–38:
Reconciling Texts and Landscapes .......................................................
Christopher Lillington-Martin
Ammianus Marcellinus and the Nisibene Handover of A.D. 363 ....
Susannah Belcher
571
599
631
The West
Imperial Campaigns between Diocletian and Honorius,
A.D. 284–423: the Rhine Frontier and the Western Provinces ....
Hugh Elton
The Archaeology of War and the 5th c. ‘Invasions’ ..............................
Michael Kulikowski
Controlling the Pyrenees: a Macaque’s Burial from Late Antique
Iulia Libica (Llívia, La Cerdanya, Spain) .............................................
Oriol Olesti, Jordi Guàrdia, Marta Maragall, Oriol Mercadal,
Jordi Galbany and Jordi Nadal
655
683
703
The Balkans
The Archaeology of War: Homeland Security in the South-West
Balkans (3rd–6th c. A.D.) ........................................................................
John Wilkes
735
Military Encounters and Diplomatic Affairs in the North Balkans
during the Reigns of Anastasius and Justinian .................................
Alexander Sarantis
759
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
viii
contents
Horsemen in Forts or Peasants in Villages? Remarks on the
Archaeology of Warfare in the 6th to 7th c. Balkans .....................
Florin Curta
809
The East
Military Infrastructure in the Roman Provinces North and South
of the Armenian Taurus in Late Antiquity ........................................
James Howard-Johnston
853
El-Lejjūn: Logistics and Localisation on Rome’s Eastern Frontier
in the 6th c. A.D. ........................................................................................
Conor Whately
893
Civil War
Wars within the Frontiers: Archaeologies of Rebellion, Revolt and
Civil War .......................................................................................................
Neil Christie
927
The Justinianic Reconquest of Italy: Imperial Campaigns and
Local Responses .........................................................................................
Maria Kouroumali
969
Abstracts in French ........................................................................................ 1001
Index ................................................................................................................... 1009
Series Information .......................................................................................... 1085
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
BARBARIAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND ITS EVOLUTION IN THE
LATE ROMAN AND GREAT MIGRATION PERIODS (3RD–5TH C. A.D.)
Michel Kazanski
Abstract
Military equipment and, as a consequence, types of combat underwent signiijicant changes between the 3rd and 6th c. A.D. The Germanic peoples’
and their neighbours’ weapons became more appropriate to rapid and close
tactical manoeuvres in dispersed ranks. The spread of Germanic weapons
within Roman territory and in the Pontic region indicates that the same
tactics were employed by the Roman army’s barbarian troops and federates. A similar evolution occurred within the armies of the steppe peoples,
including those ijighting for the empire. The Early Roman armoured cavalry
was ijirst replaced by a lighter Alanic cavalry, and then by Hunnic mounted
archers. Finally, the light Slavic infantry, with its ‘irregular’ guerrilla tactics,
defeated the East Roman armies and conquered the Balkan Peninsula.
During the Late Roman period, the Roman Empire faced two main groups
of barbarian peoples across its European borders. The sedentary Germans
in western and central Europe inhabited the region named ‘Germania’
by Roman authors. As well as Germanic peoples, this area included the
Celts of the British and Thracian Isles, namely the Carpi. Meanwhile, the
Iranian-speaking nomadic people of eastern and central Europe lived in
an area named ‘Scythia’ or ‘Sarmatia’ by the ancient sources. The Sarmatians lived on the Hungarian plains, while the Alans inhabited the PontoCaucasian steppes. All the nomads living between the Danube and the
Caucasus around the 4th c. A.D. were referred to as Alans. Lastly, during the reign of Justinian (ca. 527–65), the empire was forced to confront
a third civilisation: an eastern European forest-dwelling people named
the Slavs.
These three groups had clearly distinctive ijighting styles and military
equipment. The peoples of Germania were infantrymen, armed predominantly with spears and shields (ijigs. 1–3).1 The geographical distribution
of shields with bosses, and spurs, is particularly signiijicant. These two
1 Raddatz (1985).
A. Sarantis, N. Christie (edd.) War and Warfare in Late Antiquity: Current Perspectives
(Late Antique Archaeology 8.1–8.2 – 2010–11) (Leiden 2013), pp. 493–521
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
494
michel kazanski
features were characteristic of the Germanic and Celtic peoples of western and central Europe, before spreading into the West during the Roman
period. The latter development only affected populations undergoing
western military influence, such as the Balts (ijig. 4) and the Baltic Finns.2
The steppe people, on the other hand, were exclusively horsemen. They
did not carry shields, but were often armoured, at least during the ijirst
two centuries of our era.3 As for the Slavs, they mostly employed a light
infantry, armed with javelins and bows. They clearly preferred guerrilla
tactics to all other forms of combat.4 Ancient authors used such military
ijighting styles as ethnographic markers. It was on this basis that Tacitus,
in the 1st c. A.D., classiijied the Veneti (the Slavs’ ancestors living on Germania’s eastern border) as a Germanic people. The Veneti were swift like
the Sarmatians and yet fought on foot with shields like the Germans.5
The Germanic Zone
It is possible to distinguish three zones of barbarian weapon distribution
during the Late Roman period from the archaeological evidence. The ijirst
zone comprises Germania, with the Baltic territories of the Baltic and
Finnish peoples, and the Black Sea’s northern and eastern coastal areas
which were populated by sedentary barbarians. Weapon ijinds in male
tombs demonstrate these barbarians’ high level of militarisation. These
weapons can regularly be associated with the Przeworsk culture in Poland
(see ijigs. 1 and 2), and with Scandinavian peoples during the Late Roman
period.6
There are exceptions to the rule, however: Černjahov tombs north of
the Danube and the Black Sea, which belonged to the Goths and their
allies, only rarely contain weapons (e.g. ijig. 3).7 This is despite the fact
that the Goths, one of the main groups living in these regions, were the
empire’s most belligerent neighbours. The importance of war for these
barbarian peoples is nevertheless conijirmed by the discovery in northern
2
3
4
5
6
7
Shchukin (1994).
Hazanov (1971); Nefedkin (2004).
Kazanski (1999).
Tac. Germ. 66.
Raddatz (1985); Godlowski (1992) and (1994); Ilkjaer (1990).
See Kokowski (1993); Shchukin et al. (2006) 38–51.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
495
Fig. 1 The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk culture, periods C1a-C1b (160/80–250/70 A.D.). 1: Czarnocin; 2,3: Dziedzice; 4,11: Opatów; 5–8: Chorula; 9: Specymierz;
10: Cząstkowice. (Godlowski 1992).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
496
michel kazanski
Fig. 2 The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk
culture, periods C2–D1 (250/60–400/410 A.D.). 1: Specymierz; 2,7:
Opatów; 3–5: Źabieniec; 6: Komorów; 8: Korzeń; 9,10,12: Dobordzień;
11: Nowa Wieś Legnicka. (Godlowski 1992).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
497
Fig. 3 Some tombs of the Černjahov culture. 1: Mogoşani, tomb 15; 2: Tîrgşor,
tomb 147; 3: Belen’koe, tomb 6; 4: Oselivka, tomb 70. Scales—a: 1,2; b: 3,4,6,8,11,12;
c: 5–7,9,10; d: 14–17; e: 28–34; f: 19–21; g: 22–27. (Shchukin et al. 2006).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
498
michel kazanski
Fig. 4 Evolution of the military equipment of the eastern Balts’ civilisation.
A: period C1a (160/80–210/30 A.D.); B: periods C1a late–C1b (200–250/70 A.D.);
C: periods C1b–C3 (220/30–350/70 A.D.); D: periods C3–D1 (300/320–400/410 A.D.).
(Godlowski 1994).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
499
Europe of the sacriijicial deposition of weapons in peat bogs, including
Illerup, Thorsberg (e.g. ijigs. 5 and 6) and Ejsbøl.8
Archaeological funerary evidence, conijirming information provided by
written sources, shows that the majority of Germanic infantrymen carried
spears and shields during the Late Roman and earlier periods. In fact, barbarian infantrymen during the Roman period resemble those of even earlier
periods (the La Tène period, during the last centuries B.C.), but with lighter
equipment. Their spears, numerous of which have been found in funerary
and sacriijicial contexts, are generally “en feuille” (leaf-shaped) (e.g. ijigs.
3.2, 19).9 For instance, a series of relatively narrow leaf-shaped spearheads
Fig. 5
Shields from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987).
8 Von Carnap-Bornheim and Ilkjær (1990–1996); Raddatz (1987); Ørsnes (1988).
9 For example, Kaczaowski (1995); Ilkjaer (1990).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
500
michel kazanski
Fig. 6
Coat of mail from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
501
have been identiijied in areas occupied by the Balts10 (ijig. 2.7).11 Slender
spears—effectively pikes—also appear (ijig. 2.8) in Late Roman Scandinavia and central Europe.12 These spearheads mostly have two brackets, but
in a minority of cases only possess one.
The shields of ‘Germanic’ groups were circular and made of wood
(ijig. 5). They were smaller than those dating from the La Tène period and
had a metallic boss with a circular cap (see examples ijigs. 1–5).13 Older
bosses with semi-circular caps, dating back to the Early Roman Empire
(ijigs. 1.7, 4.8), are reminiscent of Roman shield bosses which were used
to deflect missile weapons. These declined in number during the 3rd c.
A.D. Instead, conical and pointed bosses, which already existed during
the Early Roman period, became more prevalent during the Late Roman
period.14 Some bosses possessed a needle (ijigs. 1.1,2, 4.1,2) which was
designed for use during hand-to-hand ijighting, when the sufijiciently light
and easily manageable shield could be used to push away or strike an
enemy. Shield handles were made of iron, with fan-shaped ends (ijigs.
1.3,6,9, 2.4,5, 3.6,16).
Asymmetrical axes with narrow bodies and simple edges were particularly common during the Late Roman period. Numerous axes have been
found in the tombs of Germanic groups in western ‘Germania’ and further
east in the Elbe region. They have also been attested elsewhere, in eastern
and northern Germanic contexts.15 West German axes were sometimes
slightly curved, preijiguring the Merovingian ‘francisca’, while east German
axes were mostly straight-bodied. It may thus be concluded that in this
period, axes, along with spears and shields, made up the kit of the average
Germanic infantry warrior.
Third to 5th c. A.D. swords were longer than those of the Early Roman
Empire (ijigs. 1.10,11, 2.6,10, 3.20, 4.11,17)16 and have more in common with
those used during the La Tène period. A considerable proportion of sword
ijinds are of Roman origin, something shown, for instance, by peat bog
discoveries. The distribution of long swords indicates that they were used
during dispersed combat rather than in tightly-formed ranks. During the
5th c., swords with solid iron hilts which derived from eastern Europe
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
For example, Engelhardt (1867) pl. 2.5.
Compare this with Kazakevičius (1988) 41.
Notably Ilkjaer (1990) 79–85, 167–69.
Zieling (1989).
For the chronology, see: Godlowski (1992) and (1994); Ilkjaer (1990) 257–333.
Kieferling (1994).
Biborski (1978).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
502
michel kazanski
became prominent among Germanic groups in the Danube area, and in
smaller quantities in the West.17 Some swords designed for ceremonial
use with rich cloisonné decoration and dating to the same century have
been found in barbarian contexts (Beja).18
It is also interesting to note that swords, ijinds of which are fairly widespread in Germanic areas, are comparatively rare in the Balto-Finnish
and Baltic zones (however, see ijigs. 4.11,17),19 even though other elements
of ‘Germanic’ infantry kit have been found there.20 Archaeologists have
tended to think that this is reflective of reality given that swords are also
completely absent from non funerary contexts in the Balto-Finnish area.
Daggers with relatively long single-edged blades were also an important
part of Germanic military equipment, especially among Scandinavian
Germans (e.g. Ejsbøl).21 By contrast, large cutlasses, typical of Germanic
equipment during the Early Roman period, disappeared in around the
2nd c. Comparable daggers appeared among the Balts during the Great
Migration period.22
Archery equipment was also used by the Germans during the Late
Roman period, even though only arrow heads have been found in funerary
contexts. The reinforced bow with bone plaques was used by the Roman
army, but remains archaeologically unknown among ijinds of sedentary
barbarian groups prior to the 5th c. However, a series of discoveries in
the tombs of military chiefs (Blučina, Esslingen-Rüdern, Singidumnum
IV)23 demonstrate the diffusion of reinforced bows in Germanic contexts
during the 5th c. Numerous types of double-hooked barbed arrows typically used by Germanic groups were common. From the era of the Great
Migrations onwards, nomadic arrows, which were large and had three
ijins, appeared in barbarian archers’ kits in Europe.24
Other types of weapon appear in funerary contexts, but are rarer.
Seaxes and broadswords, in other words, oriental, single-edged weapons
with short or long blades, which were, in my view, Byzantine, initially
show up in ‘princely’ contexts in Germanic tombs dating to the Great
Migration period. Examples include discoveries in the western tombs of
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Menghin (1994–95) 165–75.
Menghin (1983) ijig. 47; Kazanski (2001) ijig. 4.7–12.
Nowakowski (1994).
See, in particular, Kazakevičius (1988).
Ørsnes (1988) pl. 109.
Kazakevičius (1988) 99–114.
Tihelka (1963) 488–89; Christlein (1972) 261–62.
Kazanski (1991) 135–36; Tejral (2003) 506–507.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
503
Altlussheim, Tournai (the Tomb of Childeric) and Pouan.25 These weapons were common among Germanic peoples living in the Danube area in
the Hunnic period.26 Changes in the shape of shield bosses and swords
and the distribution of axes and seaxes demonstrate the growing role of
hand-to-hand combat during the Late Roman and Great Migration period.
The appearance of fortiijied bows and ‘nomadic’ arrowheads is undoubtedly tied to the military influence of nomadic steppe peoples.
Defensive equipment, with the exception of shields, was rare, and
undoubtedly reserved for the ruling classes. This equipment, fragments of
which were discovered in tombs, consisted of scale and lamellar armour
and chain mail. The best preserved examples of Late Roman chain mail
come from sacriijicial contexts in Scandinavian or southern peat bogs (ijig.
6). Helmets of Roman origin are exceptional discoveries. Of interest here
are helmets from Scandinavian sacriijicial sites,27 as well as a helmet of
Roman origin, dating to the beginning of the 5th c., from the tomb of a
chief, probably a Goth, at Conceşti in Romania.28
There were no major changes in cavalry equipment among Germanic
groups in the Late Roman period. Spurs, which initially consisted of a
short plaque with a large needle (e.g. ijig. 4.5), became progressively more
arched with a smaller needle (e.g. ijigs. 4.13,14,21).29 Horse bits comprised a
jointed mouthpiece with two rings, or stems, for ijixing the bridle. Cavalry
was, in fact, relatively unimportant to the sedentary barbarians of Europe:
only chiefs and their personal guards had horses available to them. In
spite of this, mounted troops did become more common in Germanic
armies across the period. The important role played by the Gothic cavalry in the Battle of Adrianople is of course well known. According to
Procopius of Caesarea, in the 6th c., Gothic cavalrymen were mostly lancers, who were, incidentally, rather ineffective when faced by Byzantine
mounted archers.30 It is sometimes argued that the Alans had an important influence on the evolution of eastern Germanic cavalry, although this
has never been proved conclusively.
Germanic warrior elites are only attested in funerary contexts from the
2nd c. One of the earliest examples is the exceptionally rich, ‘princely’
25
26
27
28
29
30
Kazanski (1991) 132–34.
Tejral (2003) 503–506.
Raddatz (1987) pl. 86–91.
Skalon (1973).
For this evolution, see: Giesler (1978); Godlowski (1995).
Procop. Pers. 1.27.26–29.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
504
michel kazanski
tomb of Mušov in southern Moravia, which yielded weapons and spurs—
an indication of the militarised nature of social power among the Germans during this period. Later on, the 3rd c. tombs of the Hassleben-Leuna
chiefs contained silver arrows and spurs. In contrast, tombs of Germanic
military chiefs were rare in the 4th c. A notable exception is provided by
the high-status grave at Beroun-Závodi, modern Czech Republic, which
yielded many weapons, including a copy of a bronze sword.31
Finally, in the 5th c., the practice of burying military chiefs with only
their ceremonial sword became widespread among the Germans in the
Danube area. This was undoubtedly the influence of steppe peoples
(e.g. Lengyeltóti, Lébény, Neštin: ijig. 7). Swords were sometimes supplemented by seaxes (Tomb 3 of Vienna-Leopoldau, Szyrmabesenyő) and
occasionally by bows and arrows (Blučina, Singidunum-IV). These tombs
also yielded belt- and scabbard-ijittings of which some elements had cloisonné decoration (ijigs. 7.6,15,30–33), very much in fashion among 5th c.
barbarians.32 Western and northern Germanic elite warrior tombs, such
as Childeric’s, contained panoplies of arms in which the sword played a
signiijicant role, preijiguring the funerary practices of military chiefs at the
beginning of the Merovingian period.33 Judging from archaeological discoveries in Gaul,34 it is worth noting that the Roman army’s military equipment bore similarities to that discovered in contexts within ‘Barbaricum’.
One may consequently conclude that West Roman armies, largely made
up of German soldiers, adopted the same tactics as the barbarians on the
other side of the frontier. It is difijicult to understand how barbarian or
Roman soldiers, being used to a particular model of warfare, could have
changed their way of ijighting as soon as they were compelled to ijight
together in the Roman army. Whatever the case, military equipment
found in northern Gallic tombs is closely comparable with that found in
‘Germania’.
Moving away from Europe to the Black Sea, the military equipment of
sedentary Pontic groups was strongly influenced by the martial culture
of the steppe nomads during the Roman period. Thus, in the 2nd c., the
heavy cavalry of the eastern Crimea and the Taman Peninsula (its capital at Pantikapaion, modern Kerch) made use of the Greek Cimmerian
Bosporus spearhead in the manner of Sarmatian and Alan cataphracts.
31
32
33
34
Tejral (1999) ijig. 14.
Kazanski (1999a).
See the examples in Bianchini (2000).
Böhme (1974) 97–114; Kazanski (1995).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
505
Fig. 7 Danubian tombs of military chiefs during the Great Migration period.
1–19: Lengyeltóti; 20–34: Lébény. Scales—a: 1–9; 13–16, 35; b: 2; c: 18; d: 17; 17;
e: 21–23, 30,33; f: 22; g: 34. (Shchukin et al. 2006).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
506
michel kazanski
Second to 3rd c. depictions on tombstones or in frescoes from funerary
vaults depict horsemen—often cataphracts of Sarmatian or Iranian type—
who are heavily armoured with long swords, armour, conical helmets and
large spears. Their combat technique was also reminiscent of Iranian
peoples: the evidence depicts confrontations between groups of heavily
armoured horsemen supported by infantry detachments.35 Archaeological ijinds indicate that long spathae swords, daggers (those with notches
near the handle as in ijig. 10.3),36 spears, and bows and arrows, constituted
essential military equipment for peoples living north and east of the Black
Sea during the Early Roman Empire. The presence in tombs of harness
pieces (horse bits and harness trimmings) shows the importance of the
cavalry. It should be recalled that during the Roman period, the kingdoms
and peoples surrounding the Black Sea formed a network of imperial ‘clients’, providing, as it were, the ijirst line of defence for the ‘Pontic’ frontier
of the empire.37
From the 2nd c. onwards, however, European military equipment progressively spread into the Pontic region, in other words, into the Crimea
and areas along the east coast of the Black Sea.38 Julius Callisphenus’ tomb,
discovered in the necropolis at Pantikapaion, and dated by its inscriptions
to the ijirst half of the 2nd c., yielded a shield boss, which is an exceptional
discovery for the pre-3rd c. Crimea.39 Its presence in the tomb suggests a
Thracian military influence which auxiliary troops from Rome, then stationed at Chersonesus, spread to regions north of the Black Sea. Indeed,
shield bosses in the Pontic region dating to this period are only attested in
aristocratic Thracian tombs.40 It is, nevertheless, possible that the custom
of shield deposition came from the Hellenised Roman West. In fact, a boss
was found in a rich grave at Homs dating to the same period.41
The arrival of Germanic tribes north of the Black Sea during the migration of the Goths and their allies was marked by the diffusion of ‘northern’
weaponry types in the Crimea. Shield bosses and axes, and sometimes
even spurs, are present in the burials of Iranian-speaking peoples living
in south-west Crimea (sites of the Inkerman type), namely at Ozernoe,
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Mielczarek (1999); Gorončarovskij (2003).
Soupault (1996).
Kazanaski (1991a).
Kazanski (1994); Soupault (1995).
Shchukin et al. (2006) ijig. 8.
Kazanski (1994) 436.
Kazanski (1994) ijig. 6.9.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
507
Družnoe, Nejzac, Manguš, Skalistoe III and Sovhoz-10.42 Germanic military
equipment—bossed shields, axes, spears of characteristic types—is well
represented in necropolises of the Aj-Todor type on the Crimean south
coast. These necropolises belonged to a Germanic group which came from
the north.43
Bosses dating to the Late Roman and Great Migration periods are also
attested in Cimmerian Bosporian necropolises: at Pantikapaion/Bosporus,
particularly in aristocratic tombs, and at Starožilovo.44 Certain tombs at
Bosporus yielded panoplies of prestigious weapons, in particular, richly
decorated polychrome swords and golden bosses,45 as well as polychrome
harness pieces.46 A series of bosses and spurs came to light at Tanaïs, the
Greek city at the mouth of the River Don, which was a dependent of the
Cimmerian Bosporus (ijig. 8). It is nevertheless possible that these weapons belonged to the barbarians who destroyed the city in the mid-3rd c.47
In Abkhazia, on the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea (where places
such as Tsibilium, Šapka, Ačandra or Krasnaja Poljana are situated),
necropolises belonging to client groups of the Roman Empire (Apsilii,
Fig. 8
42
43
44
45
46
47
Shield boss and spear from Tanaïs. Plates a: 1–3; b: 4.
(Shchukin et al. 2006).
Kazanski (1994) annexe 2.
Shchukin et al. (2006) 81–83.
See, for example, Soupault (1995) pl. 4.
For example, Soupault (1995) pl. 10.4.6.9.
For example, Shchukin et al. (2006) ijigs. 82, 93 and 95.
See the list in Kazanski (1994).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
508
michel kazanski
Fig. 9
Military equipment from tomb 61 at Tsibilium-1.
(Voronov and Šenkao 1982).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
509
Abasgians, Saniges) display a similar evolution in military equipment.48
While the spears and swords found in these graveyards were typical of the
Early Roman period, from the 3rd c. onwards, characteristically Germanic
shield bosses and axes started appearing in the funerary assemblages. An
actual German presence in this area is extremely unlikely. It may thus be
supposed that typically German weapons were diffused into these regions
by ‘barbarised’ Roman army garrisons in the coastal fortresses of Sebastopolis (modern Soukhoumi) and Pitiunt (the modern city of Pitsunda).
The distribution of three-ijinned ‘nomadic’ arrows demonstrates the
concurrent military influence of the steppe peoples. East Roman elite
military fashion provided a further influence. This is demonstrated by
the presence of cloisonné-decorated Byzantine swords and seaxes in 5th
to 6th c. Abkhaze tombs. Tomb 61 from the Tsibilium necropolis, dated
towards the end of the 4th or ijirst half of the 5th c., is a good example
of the mixture of these influences: in particular, it contains a Germanic
bossed shield (ijig. 9.4) and an oriental dagger (ijig. 9.2) with four attachment points for a handle.
Byzantine influence also reached the sedentary barbarians of the Black
Sea’s north-east coast. The late 5th c. tombs of Tetraxite Gothic chieftains
from the necropolis of Djurso, near the modern city of Novorossiïk, yielded
ceremonial swords of Byzantine origin, as well as swords with sheet metal
inlays which might indicate a Hunnic influence (see below).49
The Steppe Zone
The second zone of weaponry distribution is the eastern part of Europe,
the steppes of Scythia-Sarmatia. During the Roman period, Iranian speaking nomads—the Sarmatians and the Alans—dominated these areas.
The Alans progressively imposed their name on all of the steppe tribes
of the Late Roman period, only the Sarmatians of the Hungarian Plain
retaining their original name. The presence of weapons in many of their
tombs indicates that the Sarmatian and Alan peoples were highly militarised.50 Cavalry equipment was the basis of steppe military paraphernalia. The frequently-attested long and pointed sword, usually with an iron
48 Voronov and Senkao (1982); Soupault (1995).
49 Kazanski (2001).
50 Hazanov (1971); Nefedkin (2004).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
510
michel kazanski
hilt and a long tang for ijixing the handle, is the sign of Iranian influence.
Older swords dating to the 2nd c. possessed a ring-shaped pommel. These
‘nomadic’ swords were often accompanied by beads, which are frequently
mistakenly named ‘magic pendants’ (as on ijig. 11.2). These were in fact
either belt-scabbard attachments or sword-knot endings, in other words,
straps for tying the sword handle to a hand. The swords just mentioned
were carried ‘Iranian’ style, tied to the belt, and not in the West Roman
style, attached to a shoulder strap. The princely tombs of Brut (Northern
Caucasus) yielded examples of ceremonial swords, probably part of an
eastern tradition, which had gold sheet scabbards and were decorated in
a polychrome style.51 Byzantine swords with large hilts bearing cloisonné
decoration were brought to light in the sedentary Alan sites of the central
northern Caucasus (Mokraja Balka, Lermontovskaja Skala).52
Daggers are well-attested in funerary contexts. Most noteworthy are
the ceremonial daggers from Brut (end of the 4th to ijirst half of the
5th c.), which have iron hilts, cloisonné style decoration and gold sheet
scabbards. The tombs of settled northern Caucasian Alans have also
yielded daggers with gold and silver sheet scabbards decorated in scale.53
While ijinds of spears (ijig. 10.2) are rare, missile weapons for ijighting at a
distance played a dominant role in nomadic military equipment culture.
Arrow heads usually had three ijins, serving to increase the size of the
wound they inflicted, and bows were reinforced with bone. Other types
of offensive weaponry are rare.
Defensive equipment is particularly typical of the ijirst three centuries of
our era, as shown by the tombs of Kouban (Gorodskoj, Zolotoe Kladbišče).
Helmets with lamellar, scale armour and chain mail were abundant,
although bossed shields were extremely rare. However, this type of kit
became much rarer in the 3rd to 4th c. according to tombs dating from
this period. One exception is the lamellar helmet of Roman origin found
in the grave of Kišpek in the northern Caucasus. This dates approximately
to A.D. 300. Iconographic parallels to this helmet are depicted on the Arch
of Galerius in Thessalonica, which is of A.D. 298.54
Cavalry equipment from tombs includes horse bits with jointed mouthpieces, bridal rings and harness trimmings (ijigs. 10.5–7). Those dating to
51
52
53
54
Gabuev (2000) and (2005) 33–42.
Kazanski (2001).
For example, Atabiev (2000).
Kazanski (1995a) 193.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
Fig. 10
511
Military equipment and cavalry equipment from the tomb at Kišpek.
(Kazanski 1995a).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
512
michel kazanski
the Late Roman era present the sort of polychrome decoration typical of
the period (ijigs. 10.5,6).55 Spurs are completely absent from steppe contexts. Great Migration period harness trimmings bore cloisonné decoration, as shown by the ijinds from Brut.56 The same tombs at Brut also
yielded examples of horse whips. Finally, the Alanic tomb of the Hunnic
period at Lermontovskaja Skala contained among its furnishings metal
saddle ijittings, proof that the Alans used hard saddles.
Funerary contexts generally impart the impression that Late Roman
Alan cavalry was lighter than that of the earlier period. The cataphracts,
heavy shock cavalry, which are attested in both written and archaeological sources for the two ijirst centuries of our era, disappeared towards the
3rd c. and were replaced by faster mounted troops. For the latter, combat
at a distance became increasingly characteristic and thus preijigured the
appearance of the Hunnic cavalry.
High levels of political stratiijication in the nomadic world can be
observed throughout the Roman period: 1st c. ‘princely’ tombs from Porogi
(Ukraine) and Dači (in the Don region), and Late Roman ijinds at Aerodrom (the Don region) and Kišpek (North Caucasus, ijig. 10), are particularly
noteworthy.57 The discovery of the ‘princely’ tumuli at Brut in Northern
Ossetia, alongside the tombs of sedentary Alan military chieftains in the
central Caucasus (Mokraja Balka, Lermontovskaja Skala, Zaragiž) provides
further evidence for the elite military culture of the Hunnic period.58
The appearance of the Huns in Europe marks the end of Antiquity and
the beginning of the Middle Ages. Swift and agile on their steppe horses,
the Huns were unpredictable and formidable archers who fought within
tightly organised military units. These steppe cavalrymen’s mobility and
superiority in numbers during decisive battles were the reasons for their
military success. Only states such as China, Iran and Russia, which possessed professional armies and a developed system of fortiijications, were
able to withstand them. The Russians, moreover, only conquered the
nomadic world in the 16th c., and this was down to the advent of ijire-arms.
The monstrous ‘Tzar Pushka’, ‘the King of Canons’, is today proudly commemorated at the Kremlin. This 39-tonne bronze cannon, dating to the
time of Ivan the Terrible, symbolises the beginning of the nomadic world’s
55
56
57
58
Malašev (2000).
Gabuev (2000) and (2005) 33–42.
Kazanski (1995a).
Gabuev (2000) and (2005) 33–42; Atabiev (2000).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
513
decline. With the power of ijire-arms, the Russians conquered the steppes
in their vast entirety, from Kazan’s ramparts on the Volga, crushed on 2nd
October 1552, to the ramparts of Geok-Tepe in Turkmenistan, conquered
on 12th January 1881. The Mongolian cavalry’s quick-march to Beijing on
10th August 1945—admittedly flanked by the Soviet army’s armoured
tanks—was the last episode in the long history of the steppe warriors.
The offensive component of the Hunnic army consisted of horsemen,
each of whom was supplied with two horses in accordance with steppe
traditions. Their main weapons were the reinforced bow, and arrows with
large heads and three ijins (ijigs. 3, 9, 10). The shape of certain arrows was
characteristic of central Asian styles (ijig. 11.10). When ijired from a fortiijied
bow, this type of arrow could split a plank of wood at 30 m. In combat,
a steppe warrior would have been equipped with at least one, if not two,
quivers containing 20 to 30 arrows. Every arrow was precious, and Hunnic warriors would not ijire them wastefully. Hunnic offensive manoeuvres
were quick and numerous, enveloping enemy flanks and attacking them
by surprise from behind. The Huns only ever engaged in direct hand-tohand combat when in pursuit of a routed enemy. Indeed, without stirrups, which only appeared in the steppes in the 6th c., these horsemen
would have lacked the stability for close combat. Attila’s warriors thus
preferred to use archery to annihilate their opponents at range. Long
swords, discovered in Hunnic funerary contexts (ijig. 11.9), were used to cut
down enemies who had been dispersed by arrow ijire. These swords sometimes possessed iron hilts (ijig. 11.5). Ceremonial swords, daggers bearing
polychrome decoration, and scabbards covered with gold sheeting (ijigs.
11.1,8), are indicative of the rich military equipment culture of the tombs
of military chiefs. Defensive equipment, especially chain mail (ijig. 11,7),
is rare.
Harnesses and riding equipment are often found in steppe tombs from
the Hunnic period.59 They include horse bits with jointed mouthpieces,
which have rings and stems for tying bridles (ijigs. 11.13,14). Hard wooden
saddles, decorated with sheet metal appliqués have also been discovered
(ijigs. 11.11,12). These saddles provided a stable seat for stirrup-less riders.
Jordanes reports that during a difijicult moment in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plain in A.D. 451, Attila decided to commit suicide. He ordered his
59 Zaseckaja (1994); Anke (1998); Bona (2002); Nikonorov and Hudjakov (2004); Kazanski (2012).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
514
michel kazanski
Fig. 11 Military equipment and Hunnic cavalry equipment. 1: Novo-Ivanovka;
2,4,5,8: Novogrigor’evka; 3,10: Kyzyl-Adyr; 6,14: Kubej; 7,9,13: Fedorovka;
11: Mundolsheim; 12: Pecsűszőg. (Zaseckaja 1994).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
515
men to gather all of their saddles to form an improvised funerary pyre.60
Even though Jordanes was writing his history at a later date, his testimony correlates archaeological evidence, which conijirms that cremation
was a Hunnic funerary rite. The episode reinforces what we know from
the archaeological evidence: that Hunnic saddles were made of wood.
Stirrups are entirely absent from Hunnic archaeological sites, as in other
nomadic contexts for that matter. Aside from soldiers who were, strictly
speaking, Huns, Hunnic armies comprised troops donated by subordinate
allies, notably Germanic infantry and Alan cavalry. These were sometimes
numerous, as on Attila’s expedition to Gaul.
Slavic Groups
The third group of barbarian peoples under discussion—those of the forested areas of eastern Europe—appeared on the borders of the ancient
world towards the beginning of the 6th c. They were the Slavs: the Sklaveni
(who were the real Slavs) and their close kin, the Antae. The Slavs’ funerary
practices did not include the deposition of weapons in tombs—archaeological data is thus conijined to the habitation sites of Slavic civilisations
attested by the Prague (Sklaveni), Penkovka (Antae) and Koločin (unidentiijied group, related to those of the Penkovka civilisation) archaeological
cultures. Other, more northern, forest-dwelling populations, known as
the Tušemlja and the Long Kurgans, were either Slavic or Baltic or BaltoSlavonic.
According to the archaeological evidence, light weapons—spearheads,
javelin points and arrows—were commonly used by Slavic groups.61 This
type of equipment suggests that they engaged in military actions that may
be categorised as ‘guerrilla’ warfare, correlating Tacitus’ testimony regarding the 1st c. A.D. ancestors of the Slavs, the Veneti.62 Further, 6th c. authors
on the Slavic military, such as Procopius and Maurice, characterised the
Slavs ijirst and foremost as light infantrymen, well-adapted to commando
style actions or to combat in forested and mountainous terrain. This type
of warfare was ultimately rewarded because around 600–620 A.D., the
Slavs—more or less under the aegis of the Avar Khagan—became masters
of the Balkans following the collapse of the Byzantine defensive system.
60 Jord. Get. 213.
61 Kazanski (1999).
62 For weapons of the Veneti in Late Antiquity, see Kazanski (1997).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
516
michel kazanski
The role of the Avars in the conquest of the Balkans was very important
and frequently decisive. They had established their domination over the
Danubian Slavs during the 570s. From the early 580s, Slavic invasions of
the Balkans were in most cases perpetrated in co-ordination with Avar
cavalry, and were often in fact initiated by the Avar Khagan. However,
Avar involvement in the Slavicisation of the Balkans should not be exaggerated. From 540 to 550, before the Avars arrived in the Balkans, the
Sklaveni had succeeded in devastating the Balkan provinces on numerous occasions. Further, the Sklaveni, who started settling permanently in
the Balkans from the 580s, were not entirely subordinate to the Avars.
For example, in 618, the Slavic tribes living around Thessalonica proposed
a military alliance to the Avar Khagan, effectively submitting to him, in
order to attack Thessalonica.63 This proves that these tribes had previously been independent of the Avars.
Returning to the Slavs’ military equipment and mode of warfare, we
also have written evidence for cavalrymen among the Slavs, who, according to Procopius, were incorporated by the same Byzantine troop units
as the Huns, in other words, units of mounted archers.64 The discovery
of steppe-type three-ijinned arrows (ijigs. 12.1–14,16–20) and fragments of
a reinforced bow (ijig. 12.15) at Hitcy, in a building associated with the
Penkovka culture, conijirms the evidence of Byzantine authors for Slavic
cavalry. Of the other pieces of material evidence suggesting steppe military influence on the Slavs, it is worth mentioning a solid iron dagger hilt
from the territory of Velyki Budki (ijig. 12.21), and some bone-harnessing
rings characteristic of nomadic groups (ijigs. 12.22–24). All of this conijirms, therefore, a signiijicant steppe nomadic influence on Slavic military
equipment.
Byzantine authors (Procopius and Menander) discuss the military role
of Slavic chieftains. The diffusion among Slavic groups of prestigious Byzantine military belts reinforces the literary evidence for the existence of
these military elites. For instance, Matynovka’s ‘princely’ treasure contained silver belt ijittings.65 The majority of objects of this type brought to
light at Slavic sites were made of bronze, however.
63 Jord. Get. 213.
64 Kazanski (2009).
65 Pekarskaja and Kidd (1994) pl. 31–35. This has sometimes been wrongly attributed to
steppe nomadic groups despite the fact that the treasure clearly contains no steppe-type
object and is situated in the middle of the Slavic Penkova culture.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
517
Fig. 12 Pieces of Slavic military and cavalry equipment of nomadic steppe
origin (5th to 8th c.). 1: Kolodeznyj Bugor; 2: Hohlov Vir; 3: Tajamnova;
4: Pesčanoe; 5: Dem’janka; 6: Hotomel’; 7: Raškov; 8: Dresden-Schtezsch;
9, 12: Izvoare-Bahia; 10, 14, 19: Davideni-Neamţ; 11: Sarata-Monteoru;
13: Hutor Miklaševskij; 15: Hitcy; 16: Tarancevo; 17: Novye Bratušany;
18: Ostrov Kyzlevyj; 20: Trebu-ženy; 21: Velyki Budki; 22: Vološskoe-Surskaja
Zabora; 23: Klementoviči; 24: Selište. (Kazanski 1999).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
518
michel kazanski
Concluding Remarks
It can thus be noted that barbarian military equipment, and consequently
modes of combat, underwent notable changes between the 3rd and 6th
c A.D. Germanic peoples’ weapons and those of their neighbours became
more appropriate to rapid and close combat in dispersed ranks. The distribution of Germanic-type weapons in the Pontic region and in Roman
territory demonstrates that the same tactics were adopted by the barbarised Roman army and federate, or allied, groups. A similar evolution
occurred among steppe nomadic groups. The heavily-armoured lancers
of the Early Roman period were replaced by ijirst a light Alan cavalry and
then by Hunnic mounted archers. Finally, the Slavic light infantry, ijighting
in dispersed ranks in a ‘guerilla’ mode of warfare, defeated the armies of
the eastern Empire and conquered the Balkan Peninsula.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Jord. Get. = Giunta Fr. and Grillone A. (1991) edd. Getica: Iordaniis de origine actibusque
Getarum (Rome 1991).
Miracles of St. Demetrius = Lemerle P. (1981) Les plus anciens recueils des Miracles de SaintDémétrius et la pénétration des Slaves dans les Balkans Books I and II (Paris 1981).
Procop. Pers. = Dewing H. B. (1914–68) ed. and trans. Procopius, History of the Wars (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1914–68).
Tac. Germ. = Perret J. (1983) ed. and trans. Tacitus, Germania (Paris 1983).
Secondary Works
Anke B. (1998) Studien zur Reiternomadischen Kultur des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts (Weissbach
1998).
Atabiev B. (2000) “Tombe 118. Zaragij, Naltchik”, in L’Or des princes barbares. Du Caucase
à la Gaule Ve s. ap. J.-c., ed. M.-C. Bianchini (Paris 2000) 162–65.
Bemmann J. (1994) “Zur zeitlichen Ordnung von Waffengräbern der jüngeren römischen
Kaiserzeit in Norwegien”, in Beitrage zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der
ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in
Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. Bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and
Marburg 1994) 179–88.
Bianchini M.-C. (2000) ed. L’Or des princes barbares. Du Caucase à la Gaule Ve s. ap. J.-c.
(Paris 2000).
Biborski M. (1978) “Miecze z okresu wplywów rzymskich na obszarze kultury przeworskiej”, Materialy Archeologiczne 18 (1978) 53–165.
Böhme H. W. (1974) Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis. 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen unterer
Elbe und Loire (Munich 1974).
Bona I. (2002) Les Huns: Le grand empire barbare d’Europe IVe–Ve siècles (Paris 2002).
Christlein R. (1972) “Waffen aus dem völkerwanderungszeitlichen Grabfund von EsslingenRüdern”, Germania 50 (1972) 259–63.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
519
Engelhardt C. (1867) Kragehul mosefund 1751–1865: et overgangsfund mellem den ældre jernalder og mellem-jernalderen (Copenhagen 1867).
Gabuev T. A. (2000) “Mobilier d’une tombe de cavalier. Brut, Ossetie du Nord, Russie”, in
L’Or des princes barbares. Du Caucase à la Gaule Ve s. ap. J.-c., ed. M.-C. Bianchini (Paris
2000) 138–41.
—— (2005) Alanskii vsadnik: Sokrovishcha kniazei I–XII vekov (Russian=The Alan Cavalry:
Treasures of the Princes 1st–13th c.) (Moscow 2005).
Giesler U. (1978) “Jüngerkaiserzeiltiche Nietknopfsporen mit Dreipunkthalterung vom Typ
Leuna”, SaalbJb 35 (1978) 5–66.
Godlowski K. (1992) “Zmiany w uzbrojeniu ludności przęworskiej w kresie wplywów rzymskich”, in Arma et ollae (Lódź 1992) 71–88.
—— (1994) “Die Chronologie der germanischen Waffengräber in der jüngeren und späten
Kiaserzeit”, in Beitrage zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier
nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg
a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg
1994) 169–78.
Goroncharovskii V. (2003) Mezhdu imperii i varvarami: Voennoe delo Bospora rimskogo vremeni (Russian=Between the Empire and the Barbarians: the Military Art of the Cimmerian
Bosporous during the Roman Era) (Moscow and Saint Petersburg 2003).
Ilkjaer J. (1990) Illeurp Ådal. 1: Die Lancen und Speere (Aarhus 1990).
Kaczanowski P. (1995) Klasyijikacija grotów broni drzewcowejnkultury przeworskiej z okresu
rzymskiego (Cracovie 1995).
Kazekevičius V. (1988) Oruzhie baltskikh plemen II–VIII vekov na territorii Litvy (Russian=The
Weaponry of the Baltic Tribes during the 2nd-8th c. in the Territory of Lithuania) (Vilnius
1988).
Kazanski M. (1991) “Contribution à l’histoire de la défense de la frontière pontique au BasEmpire”, TravMém 11 (1991) 487–526.
—— (1991a) “A propos des armes et des éléments de harnachement ‘orientaux’ en Occident à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (IVe-Ve s.)”, JRA 4 (1991) 123–39.
—— (1994) “Les éperons, les umbo, les manipules de boucliers et les haches de l’époque
romaine tardive dans la région pontique: origine et diffusion”, in Beitrage zu römischer
und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des
2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von
Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 429–85.
—— (1995) “L‘équipement et le matériel militaires au Bas-Empire en Gaule du Nord et de
l‘Est”, Revue du Nord-Archéologie 77 (1995) 37–54.
—— (1995a) “Les tombes des chefs alano-sarmates au IVe siècle dans les steppes pontiques”, in La noblesse romaine et chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, edd. F. Vallet and
M. Kazanski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1995) 189–205.
—— (1997) “Oroozhiye Kiyevskoy kool’toori” (Russian=“The weaponry of the Kiev civilisation”), in Pamyatniki starini, kontsyeptsii, otkritiya, vyersii. Pamyati Vasiliya Dmitriyevicha Byelyetskogo, 1919–1997 (Russian=Ancient Monuments, Conceptions, Discoveries and
Versions. In Memory of Vassily Dmitrievitch Beletsky, 1919–1997) (Saint Petersburg and
Pskov 1997) 262–69.
—— (1999) “L’armement slave du haut Moyen-Age (Ve–VIIe siècles). A propos des chefs
militaires et des guerriers professionnels chez les anciens Slaves”, Přehled výzkumů 39
(1999) 197–236.
—— (1999a) “Les tombes des chefs militaires de l’époque hunnique”, in Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes, edd. T. Fischer, G. Precht and J. Tejral (Cologne and Brno
1999) 293–316.
—— (2001) “Les épées ‘orientales’ à garde cloisonnée du Ve–VIe siècle”, in International
Connections of the Barbarians in the 1st–5th Centuries A.D., edd. E. Istvánovits and V.
Kulcsár (Aszod and Nyiregyhaza 2001) 389–418.
—— (2009) “La cavalerie slave à l’époque de Justinien”, Archaeologia Baltica 11 (2009)
229–39.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
520
michel kazanski
—— (2012) “Les armes et les techniques de combat des guerriers steppiques du debut du
Moyen-age. Des Huns aux Avars”, in Le cheval dans les sociétés antiques et médiévales,
ed. S. Lazaris (Turnhout 2012) 193–99, 287–96.
Khazanov A. M. (1971) Ocherki voennogo dela sarmatov (Russian=Studies on the Military Art
of the Sarmatians) (Moscow 1971).
Kieferling G. (1994) “Bemerkungen zu Äxten der römischen Kaiserzeit und der frühen
Völkerwanderungszeit im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricum”, in Beitrage zu römischer
und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des
2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von
Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994) 335–56.
Kokowski A. (1993) “L’art militaire des Goths à l’époque romaine tardive (d’après les données archéologiques)”, in L’armée romaine et les barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, edd. F.
Vallet and M. Kazanski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1993) 335–54.
Malashev V. Iu. (2000) “Periodizaciia remennyk garniture pozdnesarmatskogo vremeni”
(Russian=“The periodisation of belt ijittings in the Late Sarmatian period”), in Sarmaty i
ikh sosedi na Donu (Russian=The Sarmatians and their Neighbours on the River Don), ed.
Ju. Guguev (Rostov-na-Don 2000) 194–232.
Menghin W. (1983) Das Schwert im frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart 1983).
—— (1994–95) “Schwerter des Goldgriffspathenhorizonts im Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin”, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 26/27 (1994–95) 140–91.
Mielczarek M. (1999) The Army of the Bosporan Kingdom (Lódź 1999).
Nefedkin A. K. (2004) Pod znamenem drakona: Voennoe delo sarmatov do II v. do n. e.-V v.
n. e. (Russian=Under the Curtain of the Dragon: the Military Art of the Sarmatians 2nd to
5th c. A.D.) (Moscow and Saint Petersburg 2004).
Nikonorov V. P. and Khudiakov Iu. S. (2004) ‘Svistialishche strely’ Maoduna i ‘Marsov mech’
Attily (Russian=The ‘Whizzing Arrows’ of Maodun and the ‘Sword of Mars’ of Attila) (Moscow and Saint Petersburg 2004).
Nowakowski V. (1994) ““Krieger ohne Schwerter” Die Bewaffnung der Aestii in der Römischen Kaiserzeit”, in Beitrage zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier
nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d.
Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim (Lublin and Marburg 1994)
379–93.
Ørsnes M. (1988) Ejsbøl I: Waffenopferfunde des 4.–5. Jahrh. nach Chr. (Copenhagen 1988).
Pekarskaja L. and Kidd D. (1994) Der Silberschatz von Martynovka (Ukraine) aus dem 6. und
7. Jahrhundert (Innsbruck 1994).
Raddatz K. (1985) “Die Bewaffnung der Germanen vom letzten Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis zur
Völkerwanderungszeit”, ANRW 2.12.3 (Berlin and New York 1985) 281–361.
—— (1987) Der Thorsberger Moorfund: Katalog: Teile von Waffen und Pferdgeschirr (OffaBücher-65) (Neumünster 1987).
Shchukin M. B. (1994) “Shields, swords and spears as evidence of Germanic-Sarmatian
contacts and Barbarian-Roman relations”, in Beitrage zu römischer und barbarischer
Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten: Akten des 2. Internationalen
Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, ed. C. von Carnap-Bornheim
(Lublin and Marburg 1994) 485–95.
Shchukin M., Kazanski M. and Sharov O. (2006) Des Goths aux Huns: Le Nord de la Mer
Noire au Bas-Empire et à l’époque des Grandes Migrations (BAR International Series 1535)
(Oxford 2006).
Skalon K. M. (1973) “Der Helm von Conceşti”, in Spätrömische Gardenhelme, ed. H. Klumbach (Munich 1973) 91–94.
Soupault V. (1995) “Les tombes à épée au nord-est et à l’est de la mer Noire au Bas-Empire”,
in La noblesse romaine et chefs barbares du IIIe au VIIe siècle, edd. F. Vallet and M. Kazanski (Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1995) 227–57.
—— (1996) “A propos de l’origine et de la diffusion des poignards et épées à encoches
(IVe–VIIe s.)”, Matyeriali po Arhyeologii, Istorii i Etnograijii Tavrii 5 (1996) 60–76.
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8
barbarian military equipment
521
Tejral J. (1999) “Die spätantiken militärischen Eliten beiderseits der norisch-pannonischen
Grenze aus der Sicht der Grabfunde”, in Germanen beiderseits des spätantiken Limes,
edd. T. Fischer, G. Precht and J. Tejral (Cologne and Brno 1999) 218–92.
—— (2003) “Neue Erkentnisse zur Frage der donaulandisch-ostgermanischen Kriegerbeziehungsweise Männergräber des 5. Jahrhunderts”, Fundberichte aus Österreich 41
(2003) 496–524.
Tihelka K. (1963) “Knížecí hrob z období stĕhování národů u Blučiny, okr; Brno-Venkov”,
Památky Archeologické 65/2 (1963) 467–98.
Von Carnap-Bornheim C. and Ilkjær J. (1990–96) Illerup Ådal (Aarhus 1990–96), Bd. 1–8.
Voronov Iu. N. and Šhenkao N. K. (1982) “Vooruzhenie voinov Abkhazii IV–VII vv.”
(Russian=“The military equipment of the Abkhazian peoples during the 4th to 7th c.
A.D.”), in Drevnosti epokhi velikogo pereseleniia narodov V–VIII vv. (Russian=Antiquities
of the Era of the Great Migrations, during the 5th to 8th c.), edd. A. K. Ambroz and I.
Erdelyi (Moscow 1982) 121–64.
Zaseckaia I. P. (1994) Kul’tura kochevnikov iuzhnorusskikh stepei v gunnskogo epokhu (konec
IV–V vv.) (Russian=The Nomadic Civilisation of the Steppes in the South of Russia during
the Hunnic era (Late 4th to 5th c.)) (Saint Petersburg 1994).
Zielung N. (1989) Studien zu germanischen Schilden der Spätlatène und der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien (BAR International Series 505) (Oxford 1989).
List of Figures
Fig. 1 The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk culture, periods C1a-C1b
(160/80–250/70 A.D.). 1: Czarnocin; 2,3: Dziedzice; 4,11: Opatów; 5–8: Chorula; 9: Specymierz; 10: Cząstkowice. (Godlowski 1992).
Fig. 2 The evolution of military equipment within the Przeworsk culture, periods C2–D1
(250/60–400/410 A.D.). 1: Specymierz; 2,7: Opatów; 3–5: Źabieniec; 6: Komorów; 8:
Korzeń; 9,10,12: Dobordzień; 11: Nowa Wieś Legnicka. (Godlowski 1992).
Fig. 3 Some tombs of the Černjahov culture. 1: Mogoşani, tomb 15; 2: Tîrgşor, tomb 147; 3:
Belen’koe, tomb 6; 4: Oselivka, tomb 70. Scales—a: 1,2; b: 3,4,6,8,11,12; c: 5–7,9,10; d: 14–17;
e: 28–34; f: 19–21; g: 22–27. (Shchukin et al. 2006).
Fig. 4 Evolution of the military equipment of the eastern Balts’ civilisation. A: period
C1a (160/80–210/30 A.D.); B: periods C1a late–C1b (200–250/70 A.D.); C: periods C1b–C3
(220/30–350/70 A.D.); D: periods C3–D1 (300/320–400/410 A.D.). (Godlowski 1994).
Fig. 5 Shields from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987).
Fig. 6 Coat of mail from Thorsberg. (Raddatz 1987).
Fig. 7 Danubian tombs of military chiefs during the Great Migration period. 1–19:
Lengyeltóti; 20–34: Lébény. Scales—a: 1–9; 13–16, 35; b: 2; c: 18; d: 17; 17; e: 21–23, 30,33;
f: 22; g: 34. (Shchukin et al. 2006).
Fig. 8 Shield boss and spear from Tanaïs. Plates a: 1–3; b: 4. (Shchukin et al. 2006).
Fig. 9 Military equipment from tomb 61 at Tsibilium-1. (Voronov and Šenkao 1982).
Fig. 10 Military equipment and cavalry equipment from the tomb at Kišpek. (Kazanski
1995a).
Fig. 11 Military equipment and Hunnic cavalry equipment. 1: Novo-Ivanovka; 2,4,5,8:
Novogrigor’evka; 3,10: Kyzyl-Adyr; 6,14: Kubej; 7,9,13: Fedorovka; 11: Mundolsheim; 12:
Pecsűszőg. (Zaseckaja 1994).
Fig. 12 Pieces of Slavic cavalry equipment of nomadic steppe origin (5th to 8th c.). 1:
Kolodeznyj Bugor; 2: Hohlov Vir; 3: Tajamnova; 4: Pesčanoe; 5: Dem’janka; 6: Hotomel’;
7: Raškov; 8: Dresden-Schtezsch; 9, 12: Izvoare-Bahia; 10, 14, 19: Davideni-Neamţ; 11:
Sarata-Monteoru; 13: Hutor Miklaševskij; 15: Hitcy; 16: Tarancevo; 17: Novye Bratušany;
18: Ostrov Kyzlevyj; 20: Trebuženy; 21: Velyki Budki; 22: Vološskoe-Surskaja Zabora; 23:
Klementoviči; 24: Selište. (Kazanski 1999).
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25257-8